Published
June 20, 2026
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes class action complaints and third-party testing. The statements below are unproven allegations. The brands deny the claims, no court has found them liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal or medical advice.
Status
Class Actions Filed · No MDL
JPML declined to centralize the Huel cases (MDL 3177 denied, April 2026)
Allegation
Undisclosed lead & cadmium in protein powders
Mainly California Prop 65 / consumer-protection claims · figures are alleged, not adjudicated
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form · be wary of "join" sites
What Is This About?
Following widely covered testing of protein powders for heavy metals, a wave of class action lawsuits was filed in 2026 alleging that popular protein powders contain undisclosed lead — and in some cases cadmium or arsenic — and that the brands failed to tell consumers. This page is an overview of those cases, what they actually allege, and what they do not. The brands deny the claims, no court has found any of them liable, and there is no settlement and nothing to claim.Two Different Theories — Don't Confuse Them
Coverage of "protein powder lawsuits" actually blends two distinct legal theories:• Undisclosed heavy metals. The dominant 2026 wave alleges that powders contain lead (and sometimes cadmium/arsenic) at levels above California's Proposition 65 warning threshold and that the brands omitted any warning. These are mostly California consumer-protection claims (Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act) — not personal-injury cases.
• "Protein spiking" / overstated protein. A separate, older theory alleges some products overstate their protein content — for example by relying on a nitrogen-based test that cheaper fillers or free amino acids can inflate, rather than the protein-quality measure regulators expect. This is a mislabeling/quantity theory, not a contamination theory.
These are legally different and shouldn't be merged. (One brand, OWYN, has faced both a protein-overstatement suit and a separate lead suit.)
Which Brands Have Been Sued?
Brands named in 2026 heavy-metals complaints include — each as an allegation, with figures drawn from plaintiff or third-party testing the brands dispute:• Huel (Black Edition) — the subject of several suits across multiple districts.
• Naked Nutrition (Vegan Mass Gainer) — alleged to contain the highest lead level among products one outlet tested.
• Jocko Fuel (Mölk) — McNatt v. Jocko Fuel, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00791 (S.D. Cal.), filed February 2026.
• OWYN — a 2026 lead suit over its plant protein powder, plus an earlier protein-overstatement suit.
Other brands have been named as well. Every per-serving metal figure in these complaints is an allegation, not an adjudicated fact, and the companies dispute the testing methodology.
No MDL: The JPML Said No
Plaintiffs asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the Huel cases into a single MDL (proposed as MDL No. 3177). On April 2, 2026, the JPML denied centralization, finding too few actions and that informal coordination was a better fit; Huel itself opposed an MDL. As a result, the cases remain scattered as individual class actions in their separate courts — there is no single consolidated proceeding and no MDL judge overseeing them.What the Testing Actually Showed
Two testing efforts drove the public attention, and they are not the same:• Consumer Reports (published October 2025, expanded January 2026) tested protein powders and shakes and reported that more than two-thirds had more lead in a single serving than its experts consider safe in a day, that plant-based powders were generally higher in lead than dairy-based ones, and that a few products exceeded its concern levels for cadmium and inorganic arsenic. CR recommended against two specific products. CR also noted there is no federal limit for lead in protein powder.
• Clean Label Project (January 2025) tested a larger set of products and reported many exceeded at least one regulatory threshold. But Clean Label Project is an advocacy organization, its report is not peer-reviewed, and it named no brands — industry groups have called it misleading. It should not be treated as a regulatory finding or merged with the Consumer Reports testing.
What "Exceeds Prop 65" Does and Doesn't Mean
California's Proposition 65 sets a Maximum Allowable Dose Level for lead of 0.5 micrograms per day — a strict warning threshold set far below federal action levels. Exceeding it can trigger an obligation to provide a warning; it is not a finding that a product caused injury, is unsafe, or is illegal. Heavy metals in plant-based proteins are generally environmental — taken up from soil by the plants — which is why plant proteins tend to test higher and why the suits target non-disclosure rather than claiming a manufacturer deliberately added lead. Pending California legislation (SB 1033) would require batch heavy-metal testing and disclosure, but as of mid-2026 it had not been enacted.Is There a Settlement?
No. These are newly filed, contested class actions at the pleading stage.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout, and no deadline to act.
The JPML declined even to consolidate the cases, so this is a scattered set of early-stage lawsuits, not a coordinated payout. Be cautious of any website inviting you to "join" a protein powder settlement or "file a claim" — there is nothing to claim right now. For a related, single-product case, see our coverage of the Quest protein shake Prop 65 lead lawsuit.
This page is informational and is not legal or medical advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a protein powder lawsuit settlement?
No. The cases are newly filed 2026 class actions; there is no settlement, fund, or claim form, and the JPML declined to create an MDL. Nothing to claim.Which protein powder brands have been sued?
Brands named in 2026 heavy-metals complaints include Huel, Naked Nutrition, Jocko Fuel, and OWYN, among others. Every metal figure is an allegation the brands dispute.Does 'exceeds Prop 65' mean the protein powder is unsafe?
Not necessarily. Prop 65's 0.5 µg/day lead threshold is a strict warning trigger far below federal action levels — exceeding it can require a warning, not a finding of injury or illegality.Sources
• JPML — Order Denying Transfer, MDL No. 3177 (In re: Huel) (April 2, 2026)• Consumer Reports — lead in protein powders & shakes (testing FAQ)
• NutraIngredients — on the Clean Label Project protein-powder report and its critics
• Court records — McNatt v. Jocko Fuel, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00791 (S.D. Cal.)
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Class actions filed — JPML denied MDL (No. 3177)
Example Case
McNatt v. Jocko Fuel, LLC
Case Number
3:26-cv-00791
Court
U.S. District Court, S.D. California (varies by case)
Theory
Undisclosed lead/cadmium (Prop 65) · separate protein-overstatement suits
